R v Stojic - [2020] NSWSC 170

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Stojic [2020] NSWSC 170
Hearing dates: 2 March 2020
Date of orders: 04 March 2020
Decision date: 04 March 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wright J
Decision:
(1) The Court finds the accused fit to be tried in respect of the offences, the subject of the indictment filed in Court on 2 March 2020.
(2) The proceedings are listed in the arraignments list before the Criminal List Judge on 6 March 2020, or such later date as the List Judge determines.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – fitness to be tried – Mental Health Forensic Provisions Act 1990 s 8(1) fitness inquiry – whether the accused meets the Presser criteria – whether persecutory delusions and a schizoaffective disorder render the accused unfit to stand trial – accused fit to be tried
Legislation Cited: Mental Health Forensic Provisions Act 1990
Cases Cited: Eastman v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 1; [2000] HCA 29
Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230; [1994] HCA 41
R v Presser [1958] VR 45; (1958) ALR 248
R v Stojic [2018] NSWSC 1893
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina
Simon Slavko Stojic (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Everson (Crown)
B Clark (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Boyd House & Partners (Accused)

File Number(s): 2017/231506

Judgment

Background

On 2 March 2020, I conducted an inquiry into the fitness to be tried of the accused, Mr Stojic. At this hearing, there was no dispute concerning the background or procedural history of the matter. There was also no significant dispute regarding the medical and other evidence as to the accused’s mental state or abilities.

The charges

On 29 July 2017, the accused was arrested and charged with the shooting murder of Brett Jardine at Kingsgrove on 26 July 2017 and with a number of firearms and prohibited weapons offences allegedly committed on 29 July 2017. On 2 March 2020, the Court gave the Crown leave to file in court an indictment dated 26 February 2020 relating to those charges, on the basis that the Chief Justice had given the appropriate exemption.
The accused is also facing aggravated assault charges relating to alleged conduct while the accused was in custody. These are being dealt with in the District Court.

Previous findings of unfitness and Mental Health Review Tribunal determinations

On 30 November 2018, Rothman J found the accused unfit to be tried on the murder charge, on the evidence available at that time: R v Stojic [2018] NSWSC 1893. In accordance with s 14(a) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) (MHFP Act), his Honour referred the matter to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT) and made other appropriate orders.
On 22 February 2019, Berman SC DCJ found the accused unfit to be tried in respect of the firearms and prohibited weapons charges.
On 30 May 2019, the MHRT determined, pursuant to s 16 of the MHFP Act, that the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Stojic

Details

AGLC: R v Stojic [2020] NSWSC 170
Case: [2020] NSWSC 170
Decision Date: 04 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Stojic involved the respondent, Stojic, who was charged with multiple offences including assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The primary issue before the court was whether Stojic was fit to be tried, under section 8(1) of the Mental Health Forensic Provisions Act 1990. The court needed to determine if Stojic met the criteria established in the case of Presser, specifically whether his persecutory delusions and schizoaffective disorder rendered him unfit to stand trial. This required the court to assess the impact of Stojic’s mental condition on his ability to understand the proceedings, participate in his defence, and follow the court’s directions.

The court considered the evidence presented by both the prosecution and defence, including psychiatric reports and expert testimony. The psychiatric evidence indicated that Stojic suffered from significant mental health issues, but his condition was stabilised with medication, allowing him to understand the nature of the charges and participate in his defence. The court applied the Presser criteria, focusing on whether Stojic could comprehend the proceedings and communicate with his legal representatives effectively. Given that Stojic was able to engage in discussions about his case and respond appropriately to questions from the court and his legal team, the court concluded that he was fit to be tried.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of the accused’s ability to understand the charges and participate in the defence, rather than the severity of their mental health condition. The evidence demonstrated that, despite his mental health issues, Stojic could meet these requirements. Consequently, the court ruled that Stojic was fit to be tried, and the trial could proceed as scheduled.

Orders